1.On May 31, 2001 Carmen Susana Cornejo de Albán, on behalf of her
husband, Bismarck Wagner Albán Sanchez and herself, (hereinafter “the
petitioners”) submitted a petition to the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”)
against the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State”) in which
it alleged the violation of the following rights protected by the
American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or
“the American Convention”): the right to life (Article 4)the right to humane treatment (Article 5), the right to
information(Article 13),
and the right to due process and judicial protection (Articles 8 and
25), in violation of the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) to the
detriment of their daughter Laura Susana Albán Cornejo, all of
Ecuadorian nationality.

2.The allegations of the petitioner in this case concern medical
malpractice.Laura Albán
Cornejo entered the Metropolitan Hospital in Quito, a private hospital,
on Sunday December 13, 1987 suffering from severe headaches.She was diagnosed with "meningitis bacteriana," and was
placed in intensive care for one day and then transferred to room Nº
026 until December 18, 1987 the date on which she died.Dr. Ramiro Montenegro Lopez, the attending physician, was the
physician in charge of the patient, but Dr. Fabian Ernesto Espinoza
Cuesta, the resident physician, was the one who administered the 10
ampoules of morphine to the patient on December 17th, which
caused her death.The
parents, who were with their daughter when she died, charged medical
malpractice and negligence and stated that no doctor or nurse was
present at the time of her death.The
malpractice involved in this case is criminalized and set forth in
Articles 456 and 457 of the Ecuadorian Penal Code, but no one has been
brought to justice for these criminal acts.The State maintains that the petition should be declared
inadmissible in light of the fact that domestic remedies have not been
exhausted.

3.In this report, the Commission analyzes information submitted in
accordance with the American Convention and it concludes that the
petition complies with the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47
of the American Convention.Consequently,
the Commission decides to declare the case admissible, to notify the
parties of this decision, and to continue with the analysis of the
merits relative to the alleged violations of articles 1, 8, and 25 of
the American Convention. Also, the Commission decides to publish the
report in its Annual Report.

II.PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION

4.On July 3, 2001, the Commission transmitted the complaint
concerning Laura Albán Cornejo to the Government of Ecuador.On October 16, 2001, the Government of Ecuador responded to the
allegations in the complaint alleging that the petitioners had failed to
exhaust their available domestic remedies.

III.POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A.Position of the Petitioners

5.On December 13, 1987 Laura Susana Albán Cornejo, 20 years of
age, single, a student in the fifth semester of her studies in
Sociology, entered the private Metropolitan Hospital in Quito,
complaining of severe headaches.She
was also suffering from high temperature and convulsions.Although the Metropolitan Hospital is a private hospital it
requires authorization to function from the Ministry of Health, a State
entity.She was placed
under the care of Dr. Ramiro Montenegro Lopez, a neurologist, and the
attending physician, and she remained under his care until she died on
December 18, 1987.Dr.
Ramiro Montenegro Lopez, the resident physician, administered the lethal
morphine on December 17, 1987.

6.The petitioners allege that they suffered inhumane treatment from
the time they entered the hospital.The authorities demanded Laura's identification card and two
blank checks as a guarantee.Laura
was immediately placed in the intensive care unit and the petitioners
were informed that she would be under the care of a physician and a head
nurse.The petitioners,
anxious for their daughter's well-being, entered her room, despite the
hospital prohibition on their doing so, and found her in an isolated
cubicle, complaining of thirst and a headache and with no one attending
to her.The only nurse
present was on the phone and did not respond to petitioner's request
that a doctor be called.

7.The petitioners are primarily concerned about the impunity
granted the physicians by the Ecuadorian judicial system.On November 6, 1990, following the death of their daughter, the
petitioners were unable to obtain her hospital file from the hospital
authorities.Consequently
they went to court to obtain a copy of the clinical history of their
daughter's case, a procedure that took two years.The Court, the Juzgado Octavo de lo Civil de Pichincha,
obtained a copy of the file, but it was not made available to the
petitioners.

8.In December 1990, some physicians analyzed the case on the basis
of the clinical history.It
was determined that the cause of death was the administration of
morphine to the patient, a drug which is totally counter-indicated in
cases of meningitis, convulsions and inter-cranial hypertension, the
three symptoms which Laura suffered from.

9.On November 25, 1993 the petitioners filed a complaint before the
Medical Association of Pichincha.On January 4, 1995, the Honor Tribunal of the Medical Association
issued a decision acquitting the accused physicians of any
responsibility.This
decision was rejected by the petitioners and their lawyers for violating
the norms of logic and ethics, and for ignoring the medical evidence
available.

10.In November 1993, following the appropriate presentation of a
cause of action, the petitioners again went to Court.In the Court, the Juzgado 1º de lo Civil de Pichincha,
Dr. Ramiro Montenegro López, the accused attending physician was
summoned to appear.He was
summoned three times and Dr. Montenegro refused to appear.On February 17, 1994 the Judge cited him for contempt and imposed
a daily fine until he appeared before him.Dr. Montenegro continued to refuse to appear.

11.On August 3, 1995 petitioners presented a complaint before the
then Attorney General (Ministro Fiscal General), Dr. Fernando
Casares, who refused to intervene in the case and returned the complaint
to the petitioners.

12.On November 1, 1996 the petitioners brought the case to the
attention of the Attorney General (Ministro Fiscal General de la Nación),
Dr. Guillermo Castro Dager.On
November 25, 1996 Dr. Castro received them in his office and the
petitioners presented their complaint against the Metropolitan Hospital,
and against the two doctors for the death of their daughter, Laura, for
having administered an inappropriate drug that caused her death.They based their complaint on Articles 456 and 457 of the Penal
Code that renders the administration of drugs, leading to the death of
the patient, a crime of intentional homicide when committed by a
physician.[2]

13.On December 19, 1996 the Attorney General informed the District
Attorney (Ministra Fiscal de Pichincha), Dr. Alicia Ibarra, of
the case.On January 10,
1997, the case was opened before the corresponding court (Juez Quinto
de lo Penal de Pichincha).On
January 23, 1997, the petitioners presented their complaint against the
attending physician, pursuant to Articles 456 and 457 of the Penal Code.On January 29, 1997, Judge Jorge German, the Juez Quinto,
carried out an extensive initial investigation(sumario) of the case without placing Dr. Montenegro in
preventive detention.

14.On July 24, 1998 the petitioners’ lawyer learned that the
prosecutor had concluded that a crime had been committed.Despite the prosecutor's conclusion, on December 14, 1998, Dr.
Wilson, the Juez Quinto at the time, dismissed the charges
against Dr. Montenegro and against Fernando Alarcón. This dismissal
included a mistake since it named Fernando Alarcón as one of the
physicians when in fact that was not his name.Fernando Alarcón was a witness designated by the Honor Tribunal
of the Medical Association.The
other accused physician was Dr. Fabián Ernesto Espinoza Cuesta.

15.On December 23, 1998 the petitioners appealed the dismissal.On February 24, 1999 the Sixth Chamber of the Superior Court
received the case that was transmitted for consultation to the District
Attorney.

16.On June 15, 1999, the petitioners' lawyer again learned the
content of the Prosecutor's opinion.Dr. José Marin, the Prosecutor, concluded that the elements of
the crime had been proven and that the accused were the authors of a
crime set forth and sanctioned by the Penal Code.Further, he stated that the decision of the lower Court should be
revoked and the corresponding decision taken to open the plenary stage
of the proceedings against Dr. Montenegro and Dr. Espinoza, correcting
the mistake in the names committed by the lower court Judge.

17.On December 13, 1999 the Sixth Chamber of the Superior Court,
headed by Dr. Pilar Sacoto de Merlyn, declared that the statute of
limitations had run out.

18.The crime for which Dr. Montenegro was charged has a ten-year
statute of limitations within which the corresponding judicial
proceedings must have been initiated.With regard to Dr. Espinoza,the Court declared that, in accordance with Article 253 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the plenary stage of the proceedings was
opened. However, the Court continued, due to the fact that the accused
is a fugitive, pursuant to Article 254 of the relevant Penal Code (Código
Adjetivo Penal), the plenary proceedings are suspended until the
accused is apprehended or he presents himself voluntarily before the
Court.Dr. Espinoza did not
fall within the ten-year statute of limitations because the Hospital
refused to reveal his name for more than ten years, and during that time
the proceedings against him were suspended.They were renewed when his identity was obtained.

19.On December 16, 1999 the petitioners requested the Sixth Chamber
of the Superior Court to revoke the decision that the statute of
limitations had tolled and to open the plenary stage of the proceedings
in the case against Dr. Montenegro.On February 16, 2000, the Court rejected the petitioners'
request for revocation.

20.On March 22, 2000 the petitioners presented a writ of cassation
before the Sixth Chamber of the Superior Court that was rejected on
April 24, 2000.The
petitioners received notification of the Superior Court's decision on
April 26, 2000.

B.Position of the State

21.In its reply, dated October 16, 2001, the State maintained that
the petitioners had not exhausted their available domestic remedies.

22.As regards Dr. Fabián Espinoza, the State pointed out that the
Superior Court, in its judgment of December 13, 1999 ordered the
suspension of the plenary stage of the proceedings against him, since he
was a fugitive, pursuant to Articles 254 and 255 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.[3]According to the State this demonstrates that domestic remedies
have not been exhausted in this case.The State concludes that the Commission ought to wait until the
domestic remedies have been exhausted.

23.The State also indicated that the petitioners had a second
recourse available to them as regards Dr. Espinoza.They could have filed a writ of cassation as regards the judgment
of the Criminal Court.This
is the appropriate remedy to correct errors committed by the lower
courts and to protect the legal situation that has been alleged to have
been infringed.

24.As regards Dr. Montenegro, the State argued that the Commission
is not called upon to resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused or
to analyze the situation of the judicial proceedings, but rather to
determine whether there have been violations of the rights set forth in
the Convention, which it has been demonstrated did not occur.The inter-American system for the protection of human rights is
subsidiary to the domestic law of the States parties and if a violation
has been remedied internally by the State then the Commission cannot be
seized of the matter.

25.The proceedings and the judgment of the Superior Court of Quito
have been carried out with the requisite guarantees for all the parties
involved in the case; the fact of obtaining an unfavorable resolution in
any instance does not imply a violation of the American Convention on
Human Rights; this was demonstrated when the Superior Court, in strict
conformity with the national norms, declared that the statute of
limitations had tolled in favor of Dr. Montenegro and at the same time,
declared the plenary stage opened in the case of Dr. Espinoza, once the
existence of a crime had been proven and serious grounds for presuming
the accused responsible were determined.

26.The State concluded that for the international instance to act, a
violation of human rights must have occurred, a violation that must be
attributable to a State party of the Organization of American States.In the present case, it may be concluded that the death of Ms.
Laura Albán Cornejo occurred as a result of medical malpractice, in a
private hospital in the city of Quito, and that for this reason the
criminal proceedings were begun after some delay.The criminal proceedings respected all the procedural guarantees,
both for the accused as for the accusers, and resulted in extinguishing
the cause of action against one of the accused and in opening the
plenary stage of the proceedings against the other.Consequently, international responsibility cannot be attributed
to Ecuador for a crime that was not committed by agents of the State,
for that would be tantamount to denaturalizing the inter-American system
of the protection of human rights, which acts when a violation imputable
to a determined State party exists.

27.The Commission has competence rationemateriae, in that the petitioner alleges violations of Articles 1,
4, 5, 8, 13 and 25 of the American Convention.

28.Under Article 44 the petitioner is entitled to submit complaints
to the Commission, and the victim in this case is an individual with
respect to whom Ecuador had undertaken to guarantee and respect the
rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the
Commission notes that Ecuador has been a State party to the American
Convention since ratifying it on December 28, 1977. The Commission
therefore has competence ratione
personae to examine the complaint.

29.The IACHR has competence ratione
temporis in that the sequence of events began in June 1988, when the
obligation of respecting and ensuring the rights enshrined in the
American Convention was already in force for the Ecuadorian State.

30.The parties have no doubts or disagreements about the fact that
the incidents described in the petition took place in Ecuadorian
territory, in an area under the jurisdiction of the State.Thus, the competence ratione
loci of the Commission is clear.

B.Other Requirements for Admissibility

a.Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies

31.The Commission notes that this petition raises important
questions of exhaustion of domestic remedies.Ecuadorian law criminalizes the act of administering a drug to a
patient that results in the patient’s death as intentional homicide
when a physician administers the drug.The State, however, requires the individual victim or the heirs
thereof, to initiate the criminal proceedings by the filing of a
complaint and does not provide for the initiation of the proceedings de
oficio.

32.In the instant case, the legal responsibility of two physicians
for an alleged medical malpractice is in question. The two physicians
worked in a private hospital, but since Ecuadorian law considers the
alleged act to be tantamount to "intentional homicide" the
State has a clear interest in seeing that the perpetrators of such a
crime are brought to justice.Therefore,
the issue to be decided is whether the petitioners were afforded due
process and access to the appropriate judicial remedies in clarifying
the facts of the case and in seeking justice before the Ecuadorian
judicial system, pursuant to Articles 8 and 25 of the American
Convention.Consequently,
the Commission will not consider the alleged violations of the right to
life under Article 4 of the American Convention, nor the allegations
raised with regard to violations of the right to humane treatment under
Article 5 nor the right to information under Article 13, since the facts
were not presented in such a way as to substantiate a characterization
of a violation of these articles.

33.Ecuador argues that domestic remedies have not been exhausted
against Dr. Fabián Espinoza, the physician who actually administered
the lethal drug, since the legal proceedings against him have been
suspended due to his being a fugitive.The judicial proceedings in the case against him will only be
renewed if he is apprehended or returns voluntarily. As regards Dr.
Ramiro Montenegro López, the attending physician in the hospital at the
time, criminal charges against him were dismissed on December 13, 1999
by the Sixth Chamber of the Superior Court, on the grounds that the
statute of limitations had tolled in his case.

34.The State, in its response, dated October 16, 2001, alleged that
the petition should be declared inadmissible due to the fact that
domestic remedies had not been exhausted since criminal proceedings were
pending against Dr. Espinoza, the resident physician who was a fugitive
from justice.

35.The petitioners have not had their day in court.The facts of the case reveal that the Metropolitan Hospital
refused to release information as to the resident physician's identity
for nine years, obstructing the initiation of the criminal action.The criminal action was finally initiated ten years after the
death of Laura Albán, on January 10, 1997, by the Court (Juez Quinto
de lo Penal de Pichincha), on the basis of the complaint filed by
the petitioners against the two doctors.It should be noted in this context that the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights has stated "it is the responsibility of the State
to conduct serious judicial investigations into human rights violations
committed on its territory and not the responsibility of private
persons."[4]

36.It is not known in what year Dr. Espinoza left Ecuador, but the
petitioners have presented information that he returned to Ecuador in
December 1991, September 1993, June 1996 and March 1999 for short
periods of time.The Court
(Juzgado Quinto) dismissed the charges against Dr. Ramiro
Montenegro López and (erroneously) Fernando Alarcón in its decision of
December 14, 1998, but sent its decision to the Superior Court, for
consultation.The Superior Court, in its decision of December 13, 1999,
dismissed the charges against Dr. Montenegro López due to the running
out of the statute of limitations, but initiated the trial (plenario)
stage of the proceedings against Dr. Espinoza.The Prosecutors, both before the Court of first instance (Juzgado
Quinto) and the Superior Court, considered that both of the accused
physicians were responsible for the crime of intentional homicide.

37.Since the trial stage of the criminal proceedings have been
opened against Dr. Espinoza, there is no information as to whether he
has attempted to visit Ecuador since March 1999.There is also no information that the State has sought his
extradition in order to allow for the judicial proceedings to proceed
and for the internal remedies to be exhausted.

38.For the
Commission to determine whether domestic remedies have been exhausted
requires that the State alleging non-exhaustion prove that domestic
remedies remain to be exhausted and that they are effective.[5]In the instant case, the State has not argued that domestic
remedies remain to be exhausted as regards Dr. Montenegro Lopez, but it
does argue that they remain to be exhausted as regards Dr. Espinoza.Since Dr. Montenegro was in charge of the patient, the Commission
considers that his responsibility is derived from the responsibility, if
any, on the part of Dr. Espinoza, since it is the latter who allegedly
administered the purportedly lethal drug.The State, however, does not argue that the domestic remedies
will be effective since Dr. Espinoza is a fugitive and the State has
provided no information that it is taking any steps to secure
jurisdiction over him.Consequently,
the Commission concludes that the State has not proven that there are
domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted.

b.Timeliness of the Petition

39.Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention states that a petition must be
lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the
petitioner is notified of the final judgment exhausting domestic
remedies. The petitioner lodged the case with the Commission on May 31,
2001—more than a year after it was notified by the Sixth Chamber of
the Superior Court, April 26, 2000 that the statute of limitations had
tolled on the charges against the attending physician.The State did not argue a failure to comply with the six months
rule.

40.Article 46(2)(b) and (c) of the Convention states that the six
months rule does not apply if there has been a denial of justice in the
case, specifically, if the party alleging violation of his rights has
been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been
prevented from exhausting them; or there has been unwarranted delay in
rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies.

41.In this case, the Commission finds that the exceptions set forth
in Article 46(2) apply insofar as the petitioners have been denied
access to the remedies under domestic law and were then prevented from
exhausting them, by means of the suspension of the proceedings against
the resident physician, since he is a fugitive from justice, and by
means of the statute of limitations, as regards the attending physician.In addition, the fact that these proceedings have taken almost
ten years without the rendering of a final judgment qualifies as an
unwarranted delay.As a
consequence the Commission is of the view that the petition was
presented within a reasonable time.

c.Duplication of
Proceedings and Res Judicata

42.The Commission understands that the substance of the petition is
not pending in any other international proceeding for settlement, and
that it is not substantially the same as any petition previously studied
by the Commission or other international body. Hence, the requirements
set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have also
been met.

d.Characterization of the Alleged Facts

43.The State argues that international responsibility cannot be
attributed to Ecuador for a crime that was not committed by agents of
the State.Instead it
argues that two physicians who worked in a private hospital committed
the malpractice alleged in this case.The Commission notes that Ecuadorian penal law criminalizes
the acts described in this complaint as “intentional homicide”,
irrespective of whether they are committed in a public or private
hospital.As a consequence,
the State has an obvious interest in the investigation, trial and
punishment of the perpetrators of such acts.The fact that these events occurred in a private hospital does
not remove the attribution of international responsibility.The Commission holds that the petitioner’s claims describe
events that, if proven true, could tend to establish a violation of the
rights protected by Articles 1, 8,and 25 of the American Convention.

V.CONCLUSION

44.Based on the above legal and factual considerations, the
Commission concludes that the case at hand satisfies the admissibility
requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention
and, without prejudging the merits of the case,

THE
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,

DECIDES:

1.To declare this case admissible with respect to Articles 1, 8 and
25 of the American Convention.

2.To transmit this report to the petitioner and to the State.

3.To continue with its analysis of the merits of the case.

4.To publish this report and to include it in the Commission’s
Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS.

Done
and signed at the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights, in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 23rd day of October,
2002. (Signed): Juan Méndez, President; Marta Altolaguirre, First
Vice-President; José Zalaquett, Second Vice-President; Commissioners
Robert K. Goldman, Clare Roberts, and Susana Villaran.